Editor Ken Vance won’t waive the white flag when it comes to the battle over what is in the best interests of Clark County residents when it comes to replacing the I-5 Bridge

Ken Vance, editor
Clark County Today

A couple of weeks ago in our weekly poll question, Clark County Today asked readers this question: Who should pay for the maintenance and operations of the proposed light rail extension into Vancouver? Of the two options offered, more than 85 percent of those who responded said Oregon’s TriMet should pay the estimated $21.6 each year  instead of Vancouver’s C-TRAN.

While I agree with the majority of those who voted in the poll, I have regrets about the poll itself. Without going down a rabbit hole that is a “me problem’’ and not a “you problem,’’ there are constraints to the amount of words and potential responses I can use when crafting the weekly poll question. While TriMet seems to be the obvious answer (under the parameters offered) for those of us residing in Clark County, there is one answer that would have been more appropriate in my opinion – neither.

Neither is the more appropriate answer because all evidence has always indicated that Southwest Washington residents don’t want an extension of TriMet’s light rail into Clark County. I realize the last time Clark County residents were asked to voice their opinion on light rail was 10 years ago, but at that time voters overwhelmingly expressed their opposition. In fact, every precinct in Clark County opposed light rail, with the exception of a small area in downtown Vancouver. I wish voters were being asked the question once again in the 2023 November general election. I’m confident the response would be virtually the same.

Let’s not forget that in 2019, Portland metro area voters rejected the Southwest Corridor Light Rail project. That was $2.9 billion of an expected $7 billion metro area transportation package. So the no votes come from both sides of the Columbia River. 

We can’t forfeit these battles

In a legislative town hall held earlier this year by 18th District legislators, Sen. Ann Rivers appeared to wave the white flag of surrender to the I-5 bridge replacement project and the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) offered by the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBR).

“They have the votes,’’ Sen. Rivers told those in attendance.

I’m not sure who Sen. Rivers was referring to when she said “they’’ or even what votes she was referring to. You see, the only meaningful “votes’’ that have taken place since the governors of Washington and Oregon restarted this project in 2019 were the votes of the legislatures in each state to provide their share of the proposed project’s estimated cost, which is now as high as $7.5 billion.

The members of the Washington State Legislature have approved $1.1 billion in funding as part of the “Move Ahead Washington’’ and “Connecting Washington” transportation packages. On the last day of their 2023 legislative session, Oregon lawmakers allocated $250 million to fund the IBR. So, Washington lawmakers have approved the funding for their portion while Oregon lawmakers have only approved a fraction of their commitment with a promise future legislatures will pay for the rest.

As I said, residents of each state have not been asked to vote on the funding for the project, or even elements of the project and no future votes are expected. The 16 members of the Bi-state Bridge Committee were recently updated on the status of the I-5 bridge replacement but they’ve never been asked to vote on any elements of the project and no votes are scheduled in the future.

So, the governors of these two states have assigned the IBR the task of building a new bridge to replace the existing I-5 Bridge. The lawmakers of each state have collectively approved funding plans for their shares of the project. The IBR team, which hopes the project cost will come in closer to $6 billion than $7.5 billion, hopes to get a sizable contribution in the range of $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion from the federal government and then tolls will contribute about $1.2 billion. (More details on the proposed funding package is available here.)

Reason for hope for a better project

I have said all along, I am not against replacing the I-5 Bridge. I would prefer that our elected officials and community leaders focus on a third or even a fourth crossing over the Columbia River first. After all, I had just graduated from high school in 1982 when the I-205 Glenn Jackson Bridge opened and transportation experts identified the need even then for a third and fourth crossing over the Columbia River.

More realistically, at this point, is the need for a better project to replace the I-5 Bridge. First and foremost, Washington residents don’t want or need light rail, which could be replaced with C-TRAN’s Bus Rapid Transit. Federal transit officials are big fans of the use of BRT over light rail as we learned recently. That would save as much as $2 billion on the overall cost of the project, not to mention that $21.6 million in maintenance and operations each year thereafter.

I realize that we don’t get Oregon lawmakers and transportation officials to the table without light rail, well I am happy to call their bluff. They have 75,000 Southwest Washington residents who commute to Oregon to work and pay income taxes in that state so they have a clear vested interest. They are an extremely poor partner in this project. They have a handful of their own road projects in that state that aren’t paid for and there is no reason to pad the costs of the I-5 bridge replacement to help them out on those other projects. 

In addition to that, the IBR’s transit ridership projections are unrealistic. Presently there are less than 1,000 “boardings” of transit across the Columbia River (I-5 and I-205 bridges). The IBR projects by 2045 there will be 26,000 to 33,000 daily boarding on the I-5 corridor alone. There is no evidence transit ridership will increase 30 to 50 fold in the next two decades, let alone during the life of a replacement bridge.

Perhaps the biggest vulnerability in the IBR team’s LPA, and the greatest hope for those of us asking for a more appropriate project,  is the fact that the U.S. Coast Guard has rejected their request to build a “bridge too low’’ with only 116 feet of clearance for marine traffic. Coast Guard officials are appropriately demanding a bridge that provides at least the current 178 feet of clearance. It is my hope the U.S. Coast Guard will hold firm on its demand. If it does, it’s unlikely that any bridge design that meets that height requirement can accommodate light rail.

Another glimmer of hope comes from the fact that the many questions currently looming over the project (bridge height, light rail, tolling, Oregon’s funding, etc.) will keep federal officials from approving the needed funding. In addition to those questions, let’s not forget that the current proposal doesn’t reduce traffic congestion. When U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg visited Washougal earlier this summer he spoke about people’s most valuable commodity being time. Even the IBR team members admit that the current project doesn’t reduce traffic congestion or save drivers time.

So, let’s not be like Sen. Rivers. Don’t give up. Fight the good fight. And, just as importantly, don’t support elected officials who won’t do the same.